Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla CEO Objects To Safari Auto Install
hairyfeet writes "Do you use iTunes on Windows? If so you may be getting the gift of Safari from Apple whether you want it or not, and Mozilla CEO John Lilly is not happy about it. After his daughter was offered Safari as a 'bonus update' with a recent update to her iTunes software, Mr. Lilly says on his blog, 'What Apple is doing now with their Apple Software Update on Windows is wrong. It undermines the trust relationship great companies have with their customers, and that's bad — not just for Apple, but for the security of the whole Web.' He also pointed out the check box is already clicked when you go to update meaning you have to opt out, not in and that it lists Safari as getting an update even if you don't have it installed." Update: 03/21 21:44 GMT by KD : Corrected the name of the Mozilla CEO; also linked directly to his blog.
I don't care if this is a "mandatory" component of iTunes, or if Apple is "just" trying to sneak it in... WHY do this?
Has any company ever entered better light from including unrelated junk in their installers?
If iTunes doesn't require Safari (and I pray to god it doesn't because that would be horrible design to require a specific web browser -- they'd enter Microsoft territory in that case), then Safari shouldn't be part of the install. If people want Safari, they'll install Safari. If something doesn't need Safari, fuck that shit.
Please don't look at Microsoft as a good role model, Apple. They aren't.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Oh, please. Apple is as evil as Microsoft, and Mozilla is right to complain about them.
Claiming that open source and Apple have some kind of common interests is fiction.
IMO, all Apple has to do to solve this is:
1. Make all not-yet-installed software unchecked by default, so you have to opt into it (keeping actual updates checked by default)
2. Clearly label, probably by putting a separator and header in the middle of that list, which software is an update to what's on your machine and which software is another offering that Apple wants you to install.
That, and make it possible to ignore a product, instead of just a particular install. My Windows box at work has Safari and QuickTime for web development purposes, but it keeps telling me to "update" iTunes. I can tell it to ignore the item, but every time a new iTunes version comes along, it asks again.
it's not half as bad as Google's pushing their "toolbar" along with Java updates... where you have to go into "advanced" install of the update to even KNOW that it's pushing Google Crapbar, let alone to drop it.
We've seen more problems with "my IE is crashing" lately, and every time it's that Google Crapbar that slipped in because the users didn't even get the chance to know it was coming in.
>In any event, Safari is at least a standards-compliant browser,
>so it still fulfills Mozilla's dream of a standards-based web,
>even if actual Mozilla software isn't being used.
It's not about Safari being used. I'm all for a healthy, competetive browser market where users can chose between several great standards compliant browsers. That's a big piece of what Mozilla is all about.
The problem here is not that Safari may get more users. The problem is that they have used "software update" to install a *new* piece of software. Safari is not a software update for QuickTime and it's not a software update for iTunes. It's an entirely new piece of software being pushed by Apple as if it was an update when it's clearly not.
This is a problem because it waters down the meaning of "software update" -- something that vendors depend on to keep users safe and secure and that users should be able to trust. Users shouldn't second guess themselves when clicking "OK" on a software update dialog. If they're afraid of software update services, it'll be impossible for vendors to keep them safe with security and stability updates.
It's this trust relationship being abused by Apple that's the problem, not that more people may end up with Safari.
- A
>I call bullshit on Mozilla. Microsoft forced IE 8 on me.
>I did not have a choice. Apple offered me Safari and I
>turned them down.
Microsoft didn't Force IE 8 on anyone. It's not even included in their Software Update system. It's a standalone download that you have to seek out on the web.
Perhaps you meant IE 7 which was offered as an update through their SOftware Update system. Well, guess what. IE 7 *is* an update to IE 6 -- a critical one for very legitimate security issues. You can opt out but you'll be doing yourself a security and safety disservice.
Safari 3.1 is *not* an *update* to iTunes or to QuickTime and calling it an update is misleading at best and predatory at worst. Not only that, but it weakens the trust relationship between vendors and users when it comes to software update systems.
Software update systems should be *update* systems and users should feel comfortable clicking "OK, keep me up to date, safe, and secure". When *update* systems are abused like this, people trust them less and it's more difficult for vendors to keep those users safe.
- A
I think a lot more of Apple than I do of MSFT, but then I'd rather catch rabies than AIDS....
"Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
I tried to come up with a number of adjectives to describe this action. It's not "bad" exactly, because it's a minor thing--an extra web browser taking up a few megabytes of hard drive space. It's not "stupid" because it gets the browser out there so that they get more marketshare. The best word I can come up with is "annoying" and even then, only to a fairly small subset of people. It's a move that makes me look up and wish that Apple were a friendlier company, but uproars? That's a bit much, I think.
As far as the iPod monopoly goes--it doesn't. iTunes (and Apple software) isn't the only way to manage your iPod, and Apple doesn't intentionally make it hard for other software to compete. iPods themselves aren't a monopoly, despite a fairly high marketshare, and they certainly aren't anticompetitive, as other music stores are able to compete just fine. iTMS could be considered anticompetitive, except that they're trying to move away from DRM on their music.
Your post sounds like a knee-jerk reaction to Apple fanboys.
>The best word I can come up with is "annoying" and
>even then, only to a fairly small subset of people.
>It's a move that makes me look up and wish that Apple
>were a friendlier company, but uproars? That's a
>bit much, I think.
It's much worse than annoying. Users today mostly feel comfortable clicking OK on software update dialogs because software update keeps their *installed* programs secure. It's the best method a vendor and a user have to ensure that the software isn't going to be exploited.
When *installers* bundle extra programs and install them by default (opt out rather than opt in) it's *annoying*. When *updaters* bundle extra programs and install them by default (opt out rather than opt in) it's damaging to the trust relationship that users and vendors have relied on to keep software safe and secure.
That's much worse than annoying.
- A
You are absolutely right. Apple is hardly forcing Safari on people since it asks first and they can decline the download. I decline downloads offered from Apple and MS all the time. This is a complete non-issue brought up by someone wanting free press.
The Mozilla folks are whining because there is some chance that a significant portion of Firefox users will switch to Safari. I have used Firefox since beta on Windows machines, but I will switch to Safari if it is faster. Firefox is dog-slow on a Mac, and I don't even consider it on that platform.
br> As far as the iPod monopoly goes--it doesn't. iTunes (and Apple software) isn't the only way to manage your iPod, and Apple doesn't intentionally make it hard for other software to compete.
Oh yes, as if adding a hash to stop third-party applications isn't "intentionally making it hard" http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/14/1831236 I don't know what is. Now granted that, has been broken but still it is no excuse for Apple to decide to block third-party applications from using the iPod.
There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
And it's not just Safari. It's iTunes as well. If you have QuickTime or Safari (it's been in beta on Windows since last summer), but not iTunes, the updater will offer you iTunes -- preselected -- every time a new version comes out, and call it an update. It's only become an issue now because most people using Apple Software Update on Windows were using it for iTunes. Since Safari was in beta until recently, the only things the updater offered were iTunes and QuickTime -- things that were already on most users' machines.
Sketchy tactics are sketchy.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I completely agree with you. Many times people say "If Microsoft did this... blah blah" and most of the time the comparison is completely silly. But this time it's spot on. And Apple is just as wrong to do it as Microsoft was (and is).
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
In all honesty, I think that MSFT was right in pushing IE7 as an upgrade for IE6. IE7 is an update to IE6, not a totally separate product. The reality is that the security improvements in IE7 (the phishing filter and the fact that it disabled most ActiveX controls by default) are enough of a reason to justify recommending it to customers (and just like the Safari "update" people are complaining about, you can turn it off).
I'd have more issues if Microsoft decided to force a download of (say) Visual Studio Express as an "upgrade" to Windows (or any other component that's not a part of Windows). Or if they made the Silverlight update enabled by default (as of today, they offer it as an optional download (it's disabled by default)). Heck Microsoft doesn't even include Office products in Windows Update (you have to opt into the Microsoft Update version to get non Windows products offered in Windows update).
Apple's doing one of two things: either they're (a) leveraging their iTunes monopoly to push Safari or (b) using their security holes as opportunities to upsell iTunes and Safari (since you need to use Apple Update to get fixes for the Quicktime security hole of the week)
Neither of these are OK in my opinion. Software update should be for updating existing software to fix bugs in the software you chose to install.
I don't have any problems with the Apple updater offering other products, I do have issues with the updater offering those products by default.
...as you couldn't possibly be more incorrect. If you install Firefox, you will most likely start at this page. There is no mention of Thunderbird, no mention of add-ons, no mention of any other Mozilla product at all. The default home page for Firefox is here and contains no mention of add-ons, or other programs.
But all that is completely beside the point, because the real issue is other products being pushed out by default through the software update for an unrelated product by the same company. Which is what Apple Software Updater is doing.
Firefox's update by comparison *cannot* download another product that you don't have installed, not only that, but it doesn't suggest any other products, or even mention that they exist.
Your point was that Firefox "offers" their products, where they do not, they simply provide links in their browser to their site where if you wish, you can choose to go and search for their products. Your other point was that Apple is simply "offering" their products, but it isn't doing that either, it is selecting them for you, and choosing to download them to you if you don't specifically deny them every time there is a product updated.
These are two completely different things.
The television will not be revolutionized.
>but the reason Apple won't face any lawsuits for this is because they are breaking into the Windows browser market, not dominating it
That makes no sense. If a copy of Office 2008 for OSX installed Windows Media Player to fight off iTunes then slashdot would melt from the outrage. When Apple does it, slashdotters bend over bankwards to rationalize it.
The enemy of your enemy is not your friend.
>Google and Yahoo do this as well as Apple. Have you tried
/etc.
>to download Adobe Reader only to have it auto-install the
>Google / Yahoo (whoever's paying them that month) IE toolbar
>unless you opt out?
Yes, but this is apples and oranges. Installers are one thing. Software updaters are another. With an Installer, you haven't installed the software yet and you are free to chose options (or not, I really don't want to defend crappy installers) but with an updater, you've installed the software and you should be able to trust it to simply update itself, not to transform into an installer for other software and to mix in those other offers with security updates for the piece of software you did install.
Installers and updaters are not the same thing. Abusing updaters is really, really bad for everyone because it causes people to lose trust in the updaters and that means lots of people less secure in the long run.
>Basically, when I install something -- no matter WHAT I'm
>Installing -- I don't want any other software auto-installed
>without an opt-in. Heck I even hate all the little
>auto-update craplets that get installed with every software
>package out there from Sun Java to iTunes to Reader
Again, installers are not updaters and I don't hold them to the same standard. That being the case, I agree with you. Installers mostly suck (We try hard not to suck with Mozilla Firefox's installer and I think we're doing a pretty good job) and users should complain. But bad acting installers are not even in the same category as updaters for installed software.
- A
>The *only* issue here (and where the "inappropriate" part
>begins), is the installation of Safari being checked by default.
>
>If they unchecked that box Apple would be golden from the moral
>side of things and there would be no problem at all.
I disagree. By mixing up "new stuff you may or may not want" with "stuff you really, really, really need to install immediately to keep your already installed software safe from exploits" is just a bad, bad idea.
When my software update mechanism comes up with a critical security update and I have to spend time trying to work out whether or not I should check or uncheck or install or not install, it creates confusion and leads to some percentage of people not opting in for the right parts.
If Apple wants to use the same infrastructure to advertise new products, fine by me, but don't mix them in with real updates for software I already have installed. Make it clearly a different interaction.
But they won't do that. They don't want to create an advertising mechanism here, they want to create a situation where users feel like they "need" to install this new software by associating it in every way possible with critical security updates.
It's not enough to simply uncheck the box. There needs to be a clear distinction that most users will understand between "update what I've already got on my system so that I can stay safe and secure" and "offer me new stuff that i may or may not want."
- A
His argument still stands as yours fails to take into account that 99% of the time when a user buys a new PC, they're getting it with Windows, whether they want it or not thanks to Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Windows is really only popular by "default" as there were few other options. That isn't the case with iPod.
No sig for you!!
Well, I sort of disagree with some of what you're saying, but you shouldn't really have written:
Vista is highly unpopular and generally unwelcome, yet pretty much every major PC manufacturer except Apple is bundling it with their mainstream PCs. And when their mainstream PCs are offered with an option that isn't Vista, it's XP. So Microsoft is still dominating the desktop.
When Dell, HP, etc, start bundling Ubuntu or Mac OS X or Syllable, or AmigaOS, or OpenVMS, etc (heh) with most of their mainstream, as in "you can walk into Circuit City, Best Buy, Office Depot, Office Max, Staples, Wal Mart, etc, and see these PCs on display running that OS", PCs then we can reasonably say Microsoft has lost its monopoly power. At this stage though, no it hasn't. It's just not doing well persuading people to like its newest product.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.